kcjenkins

It is terrible when people who have kids can not talk to each other politely, but it happens way too often. And when they are contemplating filing jointly, of course you have to be privy to all the data from both sides. But I'd pick one to go forward with, and politely drop the other. It's just not worth the stress.

THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION --From a teacher in the Nashville area "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year... The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down. Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more? She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess." This is the ice cream Obama promised us! Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.

Yes, just as a CYA, get them both to sign one. Then, be careful that you stay as neutral as possible when dealing with them. If they then behave like rational adults you'll have no problem, but if they continue to have 'issues' with each other, you pick one and fire the other.

And if you would like to do something to thank an actual deployed American, but don't know how, try this link. http://anysoldier.com/

And if you or the family have a church, talk to them about whether they can help. Many times, a church will set up a fundraiser for a child in need.

You might be a redneck Jedi if... You ever heard the phrase, "May the force be with y'all." Your Jedi robe is a camouflage color. You have ever used your light saber to open a bottle of Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill. At least one wing of your X-Wings is primer colored. You have bantha horns on the front of your land speeder. You can easily describe the taste of an Ewok. You have ever had an X-wing up on blocks in your yard. You ever lost a hand during a light saber fight because you had to spit. The worst part of spending time on Dagobah is the dadgum skeeters. Wookies are offended by your B.O. You have ever used the force to get yourself another beer so you didn't have to wait for a commercial. You have ever used the force in conjunction with fishing/bowling. Your father has ever said to you, "Shoot, son come on over to the dark side...it'll be a hoot." You have ever had your R-2 unit use its self-defense electro-shock thingy to get the barbecue grill to light. You have a confederate flag painted on the hood of your landspeeder. Although you had to kill him, you kinda thought that Jabba the Hutt had a pretty good handle on how to treat his women. You have ever accidentally referred to Darth Vader's evil empire as "them damn Yankees." You have a cousin who bears a strong resemblance to Chewbacca. You suggested that they outfit the Millennium Falcon with a red wood deck. You were the only person drinking Jack Daniels on the rocks during the cantina scene.

:bday:

Well, Jack, as someone who has at times been accused of offering too much advice here, I'd have to at least partially disagree with you. Sometimes a question needs our words, especially if it requires more input before we can answer. On the other hand, often a link is the perfect answer, especially if the answer is long, and the link gives full details. Also, sometimes it's good to teach newbies that, while we are willing to help, they really should, many times, do at least a simple IRS.gov or Google search first. Especially if they just need a direct, yes or no answer. Where they need our input is where the issue is not "can I do A" but rather, the sort of "which would be better, A or B, given that ......" question. I think there is room for both types of answers. I often give just a link to the simple question, myself. And, especially when busy, it's better to give a link than to just skip it because we don't have time to write an essay. And this question, for example, asked about changes in a specific area, and there the best answer at this point is to direct them to the IRS site which spells it out. Now, if after they read the IRS info, they have further questions, that would be when they could post that specific question, and we will join in and discuss "what the heck they mean by saying ........?"

Thanks for the link. Of course, I consider this part to be unconstitutional, since, unlike the state laws mandating efile, it does not allow for your client to opt out, and thus it effectively says, if the taxpayer wants to file a paper return, for whatever reason, he will have to do it himself, because you can not do it for him and give it to him to mail, unless you don't sign it, and then you are violating another law. Welcome to the new 'transformed' USA. Was this the sort of change expected?

Go to Pub 501 Page 11, and run through the tests for each of them. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf

I guess it ties in with the new tax bill Obama just signed for extending the Homebuyer Credit, which snuck in a requirement that ALL PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED 1040s AND TRUST AND ESTATE RETURNS MUST BE EFILED.

http://download.cnet.com/2797-2018_4-276.html?tag=nl.e404

That's right, Tom. It will still require buying a new home, just letting some new group qualify, at a reduced amount. And yes, if you purchased the home 4 years and 11 months prior to the date of the act, no credit.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1256...MTkzNDE1Wj.html

Think you will enjoy this one

I've written up a summary of the tax provisions in the unemployment benefits extension that came out of the Senate Finance Committee this week and appears headed rapidly towards near unanimous passage in Congress. The write up is at: http://ascpa.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/comi...tax-provisions/ One interesting aside--Congress goes back to the well and ups (this time *really ups*) the penalties for late filing partnership and S corporation returns. Would become $195 per partner/shareholder per month. -- Ed Zollars, CPA Phoenix, Arizona

Sounds like a company about to go under, or looking for a buyer. Desperate for numbers.

Here's the latest article I found. RS looking to ease cell phone recordkeeping requirements An IRS spokesperson has indicated that IRS is looking to make it easier for taxpayers to comply with the IRS cell phone recordkeeping requirements. Under Code Sec. 162(a) , individuals may take deductions for all ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business. The expenses are considered tax-free working condition fringe benefits, subject to federal income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA, if they are incurred by an employee on behalf of an employer. Cell phones are currently included in the definition of "listed property," as defined in Code Sec. 280F(d)(4) . Expenses related to listed property may not be deducted for income tax purposes under Code Sec. 274(d) unless the employee substantiates by adequate records, or by sufficient evidence corroborating the employee's own statement: (1) the amount of the expenses; (2) the time and place of the expenses; (3) the business purpose of the expenses; and (4) the business relationship to the employee of the persons involved in the expenses. In addition, employees must document their personal use of the property, and the employer must include such use in the employee's income on Form W-2. Relief on the horizon. Anita Bartels, Senior Policy Analyst, IRS Small Business/Self-Employed (SBSE) Employment Tax Operations, noted at the American Payroll Association's (APA's) 27th Annual Congress how time consuming the current rules are. For example, all of the personal items on a cell phone bill need to be highlighted. This can be a massive project if an employer has 500 employees with cell phones. Bartels was asked if IRS would accept a signed agreement between an employer and employee which said that a certain dollar amount of the monthly bill was for personal expenses. Bartels said the agreement would help but IRS would probably look at all the phone bills anyway if the employer was audited. IRS has been waiting for legislation to be enacted that would ease the recordkeeping requirements in the antiquated rules, but so far that hasn't happened. Bartels said IRS might soon take matters into its own hands by issuing guidance that would simplify the rules. IRS is looking to accept any reasonable arrangement between the employer and employee. For example, under the proposed revised rules, IRS may consider an arrangement under which a company required employees to pay 35% of their cell phone bills to be acceptable. An arrangement where an employer provides a taxable cell phone allowance to employees would also meet IRS's recordkeeping requirements.

An Article dated June 5, 2008 entitled "Listed Property - Are You Within the IRS Recordkeeping Requirements? " by Nancy Faussett, CPA found on the AICPA contains the following statement: "Any cellular telephone or other similar telecommunications equipment. (As of the writing of this article, several bills had been introduced in Congress to remove cell phones from being included as listed property.)" From Ed Zollars : "As of right now nothing has been passed by Congress on this one, though supposedly they are again looking to attach it to a tax bill. From what I've gathered, it appears the Tax Exempts branch of the IRS got all worked up over this one last year, and the issue kept being brought up by them based on the calls the AICPA was receiving. I'd also note the issue does come up in passing from time to time in Tax Court opinions, though normally "paired" with other Section 274 documentation issues--and the taxpayers don't fare real well in those cases." Many of my clients use their cell phone for both business and personal. They don't have a second line. And when I tell them to keep track for 3 months, they were surprised that quite a bit of personal use. Some do it some don't. It's an easy target in an audit, since the law has not been changed since cell phones first came out.

Well, I can assure you that I am not about to ban you, Jainen, just because you disagree with me. Even when you, IMO misstate my opinions, as you did here. I have always opposed the AMT, and my opinion has nothing to do with its lack of indexing, although I do think that was part of what made it a badly written law. My objection to it is to it's basic premise that when someone has reduced his tax burden through the lawful use of legitimate tax breaks that Congress, in their wisdom, wrote into law, they should be PUNISHED with the imposition of a tax anyway. Congress passes such tax breaks to encourage citizens to take certain economic decisions. So what moral argument can be made that certain citizens should not get to take the legal tax break, when they did the action, just because they are richer?

Thank you, Taxbilly, I think that strenghtens my argument. They have clearly LISTENED to us, and are still improving the software. That change in the Organizer options should make many happy.

I have to disagree that ATX is dying. It's been added to and improved each year, not typical of a company planning to kill a product. And it fills a significant market need, which makes keeping it alive make simple business sense.. They have not told us all the changes this year, but the ability to import stock brokerage statements, added this year, is a great one.

Gee, déjà vu anyone? Shades of TRX?

you can still buy them lots of places. http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/IBM-T...ci_sku=11744307 http://www.circuitcity.com/applications/Se...&CatId=1815 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....archResult=True http://www.bizrate.com/desktop-computers/windows-xp-pro/

"AMT is generally considered reasonable and fair." I can't believe you said that. I do not know anyone, excepting you, who understands how AMT is calculated, and thinks it is reasonable and fair. Even those who thought it was OK when it was passed no longer think it is, thanks to it's lack of indexing.